Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 30

34 GROSS POLLUTANT TRAPS

34.1 PURPOSE AND DEFINITION............................................................................................ 34-1

34.2 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................ 34-1

34.2.1 Location............................................................................................................ 34-1

34.2.2 Planning Issues................................................................................................. 34-1

34.3 CLASSIFICATION OF GROSS POLLUTANT TRAPS ............................................................ 34-2

34.3.1 Floating Debris Traps ........................................................................................ 34-2


34.3.2 In-Pit Devices ................................................................................................... 34-3

34.3.3 Trash Racks and Litter Control Devices .............................................................. 34-3


34.3.4 Sediment Traps................................................................................................. 34-4

34.3.5 'SBTR' type GPTs .............................................................................................. 34-4


34.3.6 Proprietary Traps .............................................................................................. 34-5

34.4 GENERAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................. 34-5


34.4.1 Data Collection.................................................................................................. 34-5
34.4.2 Hydrology ......................................................................................................... 34-5
34.4.3 Design Criteria .................................................................................................. 34-7
34.4.4 Hydraulic Design............................................................................................... 34-7
34.4.5 Ease of Maintenance ......................................................................................... 34-7
34.4.6 Health and Safety ............................................................................................. 34-7

34.5 DESIGN OF SBTR TRAPS ................................................................................................ 34-7


34.5.1 Design Standard ............................................................................................... 34-7
34.5.2 General Design Parameters ............................................................................... 34-8
34.5.3 Size Calculation................................................................................................. 34-8
34.5.4 Special Design Considerations ........................................................................... 34-11
34.5.5 Design of Trash Rack for an SBTR Trap ............................................................. 34-11

34.5.6 Structural Design .............................................................................................. 34-12


34.5.7 Vehicular Access ............................................................................................... 34-12

34.6 PROPRIETARY DEVICES.................................................................................................. 34-13

34.7 MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................... 34-13


34.7.1 General Maintenance ........................................................................................ 34-13
34.7.2 Maintenance Provisions ..................................................................................... 34-14

Urban Stormwater Management Manual 34-i


Gross Pollutant Traps

APPENDIX 34.A DESIGN CHARTS FOR 'SBTR' TYPE GPT..............................................................34-15

34.A.1 Average Sediment Retention against Area Ratio R ..............................................34-15


34.A.2 Soil Type Adjustment Factors F1 and F2.............................................................34-16

APPENDIX 34.B PROPRIETARY GROSS POLLUTANT TRAPS .........................................................34-17

34.B.1 List of Available Devices.....................................................................................34-17


34.B.2 Sources of Further Information...........................................................................34-23

APPENDIX 34.C RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF GROSS POLLUTANT TRAPS AND


OTHER BMPs MEASURES....................................................................................34-24

APPENDIX 34.D WORKED EXAMPLE ............................................................................................34-25

34-ii Urban Stormwater Management Manual


Gross Pollutant Traps

34.1 PURPOSE AND DEFINITION All of the above substances can be partly bound to
sediments, and will be removed along with the trapped
Gross pollutant traps (GPTs) remove litter, debris and sediment.
coarse sediment from stormwater. Some designs also
provide oil separation. These substances are collectively Booms and other types of litter traps are also included in
referred to as Gross Pollutants. this Chapter. These devices do not provide sediment
removal.
Gross Pollutant Traps may be used as the pretreatment for
flow into a pond or wetland to confine the area of
34.2 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
deposition of coarse sediments. This facilitates the
eventual removal of finer sediments. Traps may also be
34.2.1 Location
used to keep coarse sediment out of ponds, protecting the
vegetation at the head of the pond from the smothering
GPTs are provided at the downstream end of drains or
effects of sediment. Traps may also be used to remove
engineered waterways which discharge to sensitive rivers,
coarse sediment before the flow enters an infiltration
water quality control ponds or urban lakes to reduce
device or filtration device, which would otherwise clog up
sediment load, litter, oil and chemicals. Ponds receiving
prematurely. GPTs may also serve the purpose of
runoff from highways, parking areas or heavy industrial
capturing floatable oil, provided that they are designed
areas are particularly vulnerable.
appropriately.
By themselves, traps do not normally provide sufficient
The traps provide little, if any, flow attenuation.
stormwater treatment they should be used in conjunction
with other treatment devices. Chapter 10 provides an
Most GPTs will also provide some reduction in other
overview of 'treatment trains'.
pollutants. For example, trapping of coarse sediment may
also provide:
34.2.2 Planning Issues
removal of particulate nutrients;
trace metal removal; A decision needs to be made between centralised and
dispersed trapping strategies (see Figure 34.1). This
oil and grease removal;
would normally be done at the Master Planning stage see
reduction in bacteria; and Chapter 9. In general, large central traps are less suitable
reduction in dissolved oxygen demanding substances. for staged development and are more difficult to clean and
maintain.
Ma

Ma
in

in
Dr

Dr

Development Development
ain

ain

B B

Development Development TYPE 2


A TYPE 1 A SBTRs
SBTR

River River

(a) Centralised (b) Dispersed

Figure 34.1 Centralised and Dispersed Trapping Strategies

Urban Stormwater Management Manual 34-1


Gross Pollutant Traps

Current overseas practice appears to favour the use of decision support system for GPTs (see Allison et al., 1998).
smaller underground devices, which can be located in This may be of assistance in selecting the most suitable
roads, footpaths or other public areas. Note that the types of traps, however it would require adjustment with
centralised and dispersed strategies are alternatives it is local data. Contact details for the CRCCH are provided in
not necessary or cost-effective to provide both. Appendix 34.B.

In Figure 34.1, the Local Authority needs to make a Appendix 34.C provides a comparison of the relative
decision whether to adopt Strategy (a) or (b). This pollutant removal efficiencies of different types of Gross
decision involves engineering, planning and administrative Pollutant Traps. The traps are also compared with several
considerations. Strategy (b) would be favoured if there is typical housekeeping and educational quality control
expected to be a time delay between developments (a) measures. The final columns give an indication of relative
and (b), and if the traps are to be developer-funded. cost per hectare of catchment area, and of relative
effectiveness.
Large open traps may be unsightly and require to be
located away from public areas, screened by landscaping, No information is available on construction and operating
or covered. Covering involves a considerable increase in costs of most structural devices under Malaysian
cost and maintenance complexity. conditions. Costs depend on a number of economic and
social factors, the assessment of which is outside the scope
of this Manual. It is expected that over time, information
34.3 CLASSIFICATION OF GROSS
will be compiled to allow comparative cost assessments to
POLLUTANT TRAPS
be undertaken.

There is a very wide range of devices for the treatment of


34.3.1 Floating Debris Traps
gross solids. Selection of suitable devices depends on
many factors including catchment size, pollutant load, the
(a) Booms
type of drainage system and cost.
Booms are used primarily on streams and rivers where
Table 34.1 provides an overall classification of the types of
there is permanent water. Booms have been used in
GPTs that could be used in Malaysia, and the range of
Malaysia, including on Sg. Klang for more than ten years.
catchment areas for which they are suitable. This
classification is followed in the text of this Chapter.

The Australian CRCCH (Co-operative Research Centre for


Catchment Hydrology) markets a spreadsheet-based

Table 34.1 Overall Classification of Gross Pollutant Traps

Group Description and Function Catchment Purpose-built or Details in


Area Range Proprietary Section

Floating Debris Litter capture on permanent > 200 ha Proprietary 34.3.1


Traps (booms) waterbodies

In-pit devices Litter and sediment capture in 0.1 1 ha Proprietary 34.3.2


existing pits

Trash Racks & Hard or soft litter capture devices on 2 400 ha usually purpose built from 34.3.3
Litter Control drains modular components
Devices

Sediment Traps Sediment removal only, on drains > 200 ha Purpose built 34.3.4

'SBTR' Traps Sediment and litter capture for 5 2000 ha Purpose built 34.5
drains or pipes

Proprietary devices Range of devices, mainly for pipes 2 40 ha Proprietary 34.6

34-2 Urban Stormwater Management Manual


Gross Pollutant Traps

Booms are only effective as a pollution control measure 34.3.2 In-Pit Devices
under certain conditions. The requirements for a suitable
site include (Willing & Partners, 1989): These litter and sediment traps are located in inlet pits.
While their effectiveness is limited, they are economical to
favourable currents, use in locations where they can be installed in existing inlet
location relative to major sources, such as tributary pits.
stormwater drains,
The application of inlet pit traps in Malaysia is likely to be
access for maintenance,
limited, at least in the near future, as most of the existing
ability to handle the effects of water level changes, urban drainage systems do not have inlet pits.
suitable locations for attachment and anchorage,
no interference to river traffic. (a) Trap Gully Pits

Booms are generally not effective unless there is a steady Trap gully pits are deeper than standard pits to store
current to force trapped material into the boom. Tidal flow trapped sediment. Some designs also direct flows beneath
reversals or strong adverse winds may disperse the an underflow weir to trap floating trash and debris. In
trapped material, rendering the boom ineffective. The North America they are known as catchbasins.
Bandalong Trap, discussed below, aims to overcome this
problem. Trap gully pits are of course only useful where the
drainage system contains pits i.e. a piped system. Their
Installation of the boom will mainly be governed by site effectiveness is limited because of the tendency for high
conditions. Sufficient slack must be provided to allow the flows to entrain and wash out the collected sediment and
boom level to rise and fall with tide and/or flood water litter.
level variations.
(b) Litter Baskets
The material collected in urban areas includes potentially
offensive, hazardous or infectious wastes including Several local authorities in Australia, including North
discarded syringes which necessitates the implementation Sydney Council and Banyule City Council in Victoria, have
of arrangements for mechanical cleaning. developed simple perforated or mesh baskets that are
installed in existing side entry pits to collect leaves and
Nielsen and Carleton, 1989 concluded that the decision to litter. The size of the basket is chosen to suit the existing
install a boom or a trash rack was governed by a number inlet pit dimensions: baskets are smaller than the side
of factors including: entry pit area so when the baskets clog or fill with litter
stormwater overflows the edge of the basket thus reducing
(i) the type of trash to be collected. Booms were found the risk of flooding. Their low cost and easy installation
to be effective in retaining both smaller floating and make them attractive in existing piped drainage systems.
partially submerged objects and larger objects. Materials can be either plastic or steel. This type of device
(ii) hydraulic considerations. The trash retaining is mainly intended for pipe systems.
performance of booms decreases at higher flows
because trash is forced under and over them. The 34.3.3 Trash Racks and Litter Control Devices
minimum flow velocity at which trash escapes by
being forced underneath a boom depends largely on A variety of trash racks have been trialled in several
the weight of the boom and has been observed to be locations in Australia. The trash racks have ranged from
as low as 1 m/s. relatively small screens installed at the outlets of
stormwater pipes to large steel trash racks on rivers and
(b) Bandalong Trap open channels and more recently "soft" trash racks (litter
control devices) that are installed in open channels and at
Bandalong traps are a type of floating boom for collected the outlets of piped drains.
litter and debris being transported in rivers, streams and
estuaries. The trap is typically moored to the bank of a (a) Trash Racks
stream, river or canal. In plan view the trap is "fish"
shaped with floating litter and debris being funnelled (via Since 1979, fixed steel trash racks have been installed in
the tail) into the main body of the trap where it is caught. the stormwater drainage systems in the ACT (Australian
A floating gate at the throat of the entry closes when a tide Capital Territory) to trap trash and debris. The trash rack
reverses direction to ensure that floating debris is retained. arrangement, which has evolved over recent years, is a
These traps originated in Australia where a number have vertical trash rack with vertical bars at 60 mm centres. A
been installed on rivers and urban creeks. range of trash racks has been trialled (Figure 34.2). It has
also been suggested by a number of researchers that a
trash rack with horizontal bars set at an angle to the flow

Urban Stormwater Management Manual 34-3


Gross Pollutant Traps

should be self-cleansing, since the flow would push debris (c) Fish Net (Net Tech) Device
towards the sides of the rack. The effectiveness of such
an approach would appear to depend on the shape and The Fish Net (Net Tech) device consists of a frame that
surface finish of the bars and their angle relative to the installed on a pipe headwall with a net sock attached.
flow. The sock fills with litter until it becomes so full that a
release is triggered and the sock is released. While the
sock is still attached to the unit it ties itself and falls free of
the stormwater flow (subject to there being sufficient room
for the sock to be displaced away from the stormwater
flow). After the sock is cleaned it is re-attached to its
frame.

34.3.4 Sediment Traps

Sedimentation traps function by providing an enlarged


waterway area and/or reduced hydraulic gradient to
reduce flow velocities and allow bedload sediment to be
trapped and suspended sediments to settle out of
suspension. They do not provide litter removal.

Prior to the late 1970s, a number of sedimentation basins


were constructed in Australia (primarily the ACT) using
primarily gabions or masonry walls to create unlined
Figure 34.2 Trash Rack
sedimentation ponds. Difficulties were experienced in de-
watering and de-silting these structures. Until the
Nielsen and Carleton, 1989 also undertook laboratory tests construction of a series of GPTs and water pollution control
to try and establish the necessary conditions for trash ponds upstream of the pond, it also acted as a
racks to be self-cleansing. The laboratory investigation sedimentation basin.
failed to identify a self-cleansing design.
The design of sediment traps is not covered in detail in this
Design principles for fixed trash racks are the same as Manual, as they would mainly be used outside urban areas.
described under SBTR-type traps, in Section 34.5.5. In urban areas, the presence of litter makes it preferable
to build a 'SBTR'-type GPT.
(b) Litter Control Devices
34.3.5 'SBTR' type GPTs
More recently a number of litter control devices have been
installed in open channels and at the outlets to piped SBTR traps combine the functions of a Sedimentation Basin
drains in Australia. These devices collect litter, as do trash and a fixed Trash Rack. The device is named after the
racks, and they therefore can be described as "soft" trash initial of the two components. 'SBTR' type traps have
racks. "Soft" trash racks are a series of nylon mesh previously been referred to in some literature as GPTs.
"socks" which are attached to a rectangular metal frame
that is mounted vertically and perpendicular to the flow. The difficulties in de-watering and de-silting the
sedimentation basins in Canberra led, in 1979, to the
The "sock" is laid out downstream of the metal frame construction of the first major SBTR trap in Canberra,
parallel to the direction of flow. A series of these socks are Australia. The trap was a major concrete lined basin that
mounted side by side across a channel to form a "soft" was designed to both intercept litter, debris and coarse
trash rack. The nylon socks have been found to effectively sediment during storm flows and to act as an efficient
capture and retain floating litter, debris and vegetative retarding basin. This trap drew on the previous experience
matter. The litter and debris is captured in the "socks" and of sedimentation basins but also incorporated additional
is retained even if the trash rack is overtopped. features to intercept trash and debris. It marked the
commencement of the development and refinement of
The socks are cleaned by removing each sock in turn, gross pollutant traps in Australia.
undoing the tie at the base of the sock and dumping the
collected material into a truck. The base of the sock is The on-going development of SBTR type traps in Australia
then re-tied and it is slotted back into place. Due to the has focused on improving these facilities for ease of
effectiveness of the socks it has been found that during maintenance and simplifying the design elements to reduce
periods of rainfall that the soft trash racks may need to be capital costs.
cleaned every two to three days.

34-4 Urban Stormwater Management Manual


Gross Pollutant Traps

Figure 34.3 Type 1 SBTR Trap

Major SBTR (Type 1) traps are typically located in major


34.4 GENERAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
channels and engineered waterways to intercept medium
to high stormwater flows from large urban catchments.
34.4.1 Data Collection
They are visually unattractive and generally should be
placed away from residential areas, or screened (see
Design of GPTs requires data on:
Figure 34.3).
Catchment area,
Covered in-ground (Type 2) traps are used at the Hydrology of inflows,
downstream end of pipe or open drains. They are less
Survey details of the site,
visually intrusive and hence are more suitable for
residential or urban areas. Due to the cost of the structure Hydraulic conditions at the GPT outlet, which may
they are usually smaller in size than Type 1 traps and are create tailwater,
only suitable for treating small catchment areas, mainly on Soil type, and
pipe drains. Estimates of sediment loads and other pollutant
loads from the catchment.
Indicative standard arrangements for Type 1 and Type 2
SBTR traps are given in Figures 34.4 and 34.5, 34.4.2 Hydrology
respectively. Many design variations are possible to suit
site conditions. Design principles for the SBTR type traps Peak inflows shall be computed using the Rational Method
are discussed in Section 34.5. or one of the hydrograph methods in Chapter 14.
Normally these calculations will be done as part of the
34.3.6 Proprietary Traps hydraulic design of the drainage system. The shape and
volume of the hydrograph is not important for GPT design.
The realisation that large numbers of traps are needed to
control water pollution has led to commercial development The magnitude of sediment and other pollutant loads will
of a range of devices for trapping gross pollutants. determine the frequency of cleaning. Pollutant load
calculations, if required, can be performed using the
Some of the proprietary GPTs that are currently available methods described in Part D, Chapter 15.
overseas are described in Section 34.6.

Urban Stormwater Management Manual 34-5


Gross Pollutant Traps

Figure 34.4 Type 1 SBTR Trap Configuration

Figure 34.5 Type 2 SBTR Trap Configuration

34-6 Urban Stormwater Management Manual


Gross Pollutant Traps

34.4.3 Design Criteria Sudden drops into deep water;


Sudden changes in flow velocities or water levels; and
For each GPT, albeit as part of a "treatment train", a
Raised structures that children can fall off.
primary treatment objective or performance criteria related
to a specific pollutant shall be ascribed. This is the target
Therefore GPTs should be fully enclosed if possible, or
pollutant that is to be reduced to a nominated level.
fenced off. Such fencing should be designed so that it
does not interfere with the hydraulics of the flow structure.
34.4.4 Hydraulic Design
Provision shall be made to minimise mosquito hazard as
The GPT must be designed so as to prevent any additional
follows:
surcharge in the stormwater system in the event of partial
or complete blockage. Tidal influence and backwater keeping the sediment trap wet with a low or trickle
effects must be considered. Refer to Chapter 10 and 16 flow; or
for a discussion of stormwater system design. using biodegradable slow release larvicides (note: full
environmental impact assessment of the larvicide
The pollutant reduction performance must be maintained would be needed prior to the adoption of this
up to the design discharge. If design flows are exceeded, alternative).
the GPT should not allow any significant re-mobilisation of
trapped material.
34.5 DESIGN OF SBTR TRAPS
34.4.5 Ease of Maintenance
The Type 1 SBTR traps are designed as open traps on
Sediment must be removed from the traps on a frequent large, open channels or engineered waterways where they
basis. In the past, the design has often not allowed for are installed at or below ground level.
easy cleaning. Problems with cleaning can be partly
overcome by appropriate design. The Type 2 SBTR trap is enclosed, and is installed below
ground. Type 2 traps are intended for pipe drainage
Maintenance considerations should be addressed during systems.
the preliminary design stage of a GPT, to ensure:
SBTR traps permit coarse sediment to settle to the bottom
cost effective maintenance; by decreasing the stormwater flow velocity by increasing
maintenance staff to follow occupational health and the width and/or depth of the channel.
safety procedures. This includes the avoidance, where
possible, of entry by personnel into the device; The trash rack is intended to collect floating and
avoidance of direct human contact with debris and submerged debris. Experience has shown that it should be
trapped pollutants; located at the downstream end of the sediment trap.
minimisation of environmental impacts during
34.5.1 Design Standard
maintenance (e.g. the disposal of water in the GPT);
avoidance of the necessity for routine maintenance The 'SBTR'-type GPTs should be designed to retain all litter
during storm events, although emergency and debris in the water quality design storm of 3 month
maintenance (e.g. unblocking the outlet structure) ARI, and to comply with the size requirements in Design
may be required; Chart 34.1.
monitoring the pollutant build-up to enable
maintenance before the GPT becomes overloaded; Traps designed according to these criteria are expected to
provision of disposal facilities for debris and liquid remove, on an annual average basis, 70% of the sediment
pollutants during maintenance; and with a grain size = 0.04 mm. This sizing criterion may not
be attainable in the case of very fine-grained soils (silts
provision for additional, non-programmed
and clays). A further discussion of sizing criteria is given in
maintenance if problems arises (e.g. odours).
Chapter 4.
Adequate provision for road access to the site by
The pollutant removal efficiency of a trap is calculated
maintenance vehicles and equipment must be made.
as:
Suitable walkways, ladders and plinths shall be provided
within the structure for access.
AMC proposed
= (34.1)
34.4.6 Health and Safety AMC existing

Open GPTs can present a hazard because of:

Urban Stormwater Management Manual 34-7


Gross Pollutant Traps

where AMC = annual mean concentration. The Table 34.2 Grading of Reference Soil used in GPT
determination of average annual load and annual Design Procedure
volumetric runoff will be normally be required to obtain
AMCs (annual mean concentration) for the existing and Grain Size (mm) % finer
proposed situations. Methods of doing this calculation are
described in Chapter 15. Alternatively, computer modelling 0.004 12
methods can be used as described in Chapter 17. 0.01 25
0.063 60
34.5.2 General Design Parameters
0.30 92
The 'SBTR' trap relies on reducing the flow velocity 1.18 100
sufficiently to allow settling by gravity. These principles
apply to both Type SBTR-1 (major) and SBTR-2 (minor)
Sediment Trap
traps.

The ratio length: width of the sediment trap should be 1. Determine the required removal efficiency of coarse
between 2 and 3. sediment 0.04mm diameter, P0.04*.
Velocity though the sediment trap should not exceed
2. Determine the catchment area Ac (m2) served by the
1.0 m/second, to minimise re-suspension.
sediment trap and the applicable degree of
For a sediment trap volume greater than 5 cubic urbanisation [U] within that catchment. Allow for
metres, a sediment drying area with a minimum area future catchment development, if appropriate.
equal to 1.5 square metres for each cubic metre of
trap volume shall be provided, where sediment may 3. Select a trial trap area ratio R:
be dried prior to transportation. The area shall be
surfaced with 300 mm of compacted gravel or other At
R= (34.2)
approved surfacing; Ac
Bar spacing shall be capable of retaining a small
plastic bottle or an aluminium drink can, with a 4. Find P0.04 for the reference soil from the appropriate
maximum clear spacing of 50 mm between bars; Design Chart 34.1 in Appendix 34.A, and Factor F1
Trash racks shall be sized to operate effectively whilst from Design Chart 34.2. Calculate actual trap removal
passing the design flow without overtopping and with efficiency for the site soil:
50% blockage;
P0.04* = P0.04 F 1 (34.3)
Trash racks shall be structurally stable when
overtopped by flood events up to the major design
Adjust R if necessary by trial and error to obtain the
storm when fully blocked;
required performance.
Trash racks and their supporting structures shall be
designed to withstand log impact together with drag 5. Select the length Lt (m) and width Wt (m) of the
loads or debris loads (100% blocked); and sediment trap to give the required area At such that
The design must allow water to flow past or over the the length to width ratio is between 2 and 3 and the
trash rack when the trash rack is blocked. width is not less than 2 metres.
Vehicular access must be provided for maintenance, in
accordance with Section 34.5.7. Depth of the Sediment Trap

34.5.3 Size Calculation 6. Determine the average annual export M (tonne) of


sediment with grain size = 0.01 mm from equations in
The sediment basin size is determined using the following Chapter 15.
procedure. A flowchart of the procedure is given in
7. Determine the average annual percentage retention
Figure 34.6.
P0.01 of sediment = 0.01 mm for the reference soil
from the applicable Curve B in Design Chart 34.1 for
The procedure was developed for a Reference Soil' which
the selected trap area ratio (At /Ac). Then determine
is a silty loam. The grading of the Reference Soil is
the adjusted average annual percentage retention
defined in Table 34.2. The efficiency of the trap will vary
P0.04* of sediment = 0.01 mm from the equation:
with soil type. Adjustment factors for different soils are
given in Design Chart 34.2 in Appendix 34.A. The chart P0.01* = P0.01 F 2 (34.4)
shows typical soil gradings and the relevant adjustment
factors FA and FV.
where,
F2 = Factor from Design Chart 34.2.

34-8 Urban Stormwater Management Manual


Gross Pollutant Traps

1. Determine required % removal


1. Determine required % removal

2. Determine catchment area,


%2.urbanisation
Determine catchment area,
and soil type
% urbanisation and soil type

3. Select trap area ratio R


3. Select trap area ratio R
Adjust R as
required
4. Determine average annual retention
4.sediment
of Determine average annual
>=0.04mm retention
from Design
of sediment >=0.04mm
Charts 34.1, 34.2from Design
Charts 34.1, 34.2

5. Select trap length, width


and area At = Lt x Wt

6. Determine average annual sediment


6. Determine
export averagesee
from catchment, annual sediment
Chapter 15
export from catchment, see Chapter 15

7. Determine average annual retention


of7.sediment
Determine average annual
>=0.01mm retention
from Design
of sediment >=0.01mm
Charts 34.1, 34.2from Design
Charts 34.1, 34.2
No

8. Determine depth of sediment


8. Determine
storage Dt fromdepth of sediment
Equation 34.5
storage Dt from Equation 34.5

9. Determine flow in water quality


9. Determine
designflow in water quality
storm
design storm

10. Determine trash rack height from


10. Determine
Equations trash rack
34.6 or height from
34.7
Equations 34.6 or 34.7

11. Check
V0.25 11.
<1.0Check
m/s ?
V0.25 <1.0 m/s ?

Yes

12. For Type 2: determine


12. For
clearance TypeEquation
B from 2: determine
34.9
clearance B from Equation 34.9

END

Figure 34.6 Flowchart for SBTR Trap Size Calculation

Urban Stormwater Management Manual 34-9


Gross Pollutant Traps

8. The required sediment trap volume is a function of the Q


H r = 1.22 0.25 (34.7)
average frequency of cleaning. Assuming that the
Lr
trap is cleaned two times per year and that it is half
full when cleaned, the required depth Dt is given by
where,
Equation 34.5:
Hr = the required height of trash rack (m),
Dt = 0.0065 P0.01* M / At (34.5) Q0.25 = water quality design storm flow (m3/s),
Lr = actual length of the trash rack (m)
where,
Dt = depth of the sediment trap below trash rack (m) 11. Adjust the sediment trap dimensions to ensure that
the velocity through the sediment trap when it is full
This relationship is based on a sediment density of does not exceed 1.0 m/sec in the water quality design
2.65 tonnes/m3 and a sediment porosity of 0.42. storm, to minimise the re-entrainment of deposited
sediment.
9. Determine the design flow in the water quality design
storm using any of the recommended methods in Determine the nominal design flow velocity V0.25 in the
Chapter 14. water quality design storm using,
Q 0.25
V 0.25 = (34.8)
Sizing of Trash Rack (Dw + H r )Wt
10. Determine the trash rack height, based on the rack where Wt is the width of the sediment trap, normal to
not being overtopped in the water quality design the direction of flow. Increase the dimensions of the
storm when the rack is 50% blocked. sediment trap pool or increase the track rack height if
the resulting velocity is greater than 1.0 m/s.
The presence of a downstream hydraulic control can
lead to the downstream submergence of the trash 12. An additional step is necessary for covered (Type 2
rack and an increase in the pool level upstream of the traps) to minimise the potential for upstream
trash rack. Under these conditions the trash rack surcharge. Provide a minimum overflow clearance B
height should be sized by an hydraulic analysis of the above the trash rack that is sufficient to discharge the
site and the trash rack. flow of the inlet pipe even if the trash rack is fully
blocked (see Figure 34.7). The required clearance B is
The sizing method for a standard vertical-bar trash given by Equation 34.9. B must be a minimum of
rack is as follows (Willing & Partners 1992): 0.35 m.

Under unsubmerged conditions, the required height of 2 3


Qp
the trash rack [Hr] is twice the depth at critical flow B = (34.9)
1.7 L
[yc] through the unblocked trash rack. r

H r = 2y c where,
Lr = length of trash rack, (m),
1/3
Q 2 Qp = inlet pipe capacity (m3/sec).
= 2 0.25 2 (34.6)
g L
e
Submergence Effects

where, Where possible a step shall be incorporated at the outlet of


Hr = required height of trash rack (m), the SBTR trap to minimise submergence effects at any
Q0.25 = the design flow (m3/s), trash rack provided. The step should be determined using
hydraulic principles but should desirably be 80 mm or
G = gravitational acceleration = 9.8 m/s2
greater.
Le = the effective length of flow through an
unblocked trash rack (m) Energy dissipation

Using a standard design of vertical 10 mm galvanised An energy dissipation device shall be provided at the inlet
flat steel bars at 60 mm centres and a coefficient [Cc] to the SBTR trap where the velocity of the inflow stream
of 0.8 to account for contraction of flow through the under design flow conditions exceeds 2 m/s. Excessive
trash rack, gives: inlet velocities and turbulence will inhibit sedimentation
action in the trap.

34-10 Urban Stormwater Management Manual


Gross Pollutant Traps

34.5.4 Special Design Considerations Access cover

(a) Type SBTR-1 (Major) Traps Overflow


opening
The longitudinal axis of the trap should be as close as Inflow
possible to the centreline of the incoming drain or pipe
engineered waterway. Eliminate unnecessary angles B
in the flow. Long, straight basins are best;
For Type 1 traps, a baseflow bypass shall be provided Dt Pipe IL Hr
around the sediment trap to divert low flows during
A
cleaning. The bypass shall operate under gravity and Flow
shall have a minimum diameter of 300 mm to prevent
blockage;
Dw
The floor of the sediment trap shall be graded to a Ds
dewatering sump located at the side of the sediment Wt Trash
trap but clear of vehicle or equipment paths; rack

Provide side walls to reduce scour of the surrounding


banks when the trash rack is overtopped. The
minimum level of the top of the side walls shall be the Figure 34.7 GPT Type 2 Trap Dimensions
greater of: (i) the level of the 3 month ARI flow when
the trash rack is fully blocked, or (ii) 300 mm higher 34.5.5 Design of Trash Rack for an SBTR Trap
than the top of the trash rack;
Provision shall be made for a plinth or access walkway Trash Racks are located at the downstream end of the
800 mm wide immediately upstream of the trash rack GPT. They form a physical barrier in the stormwater path
to allow access for cleaning or raking of collected retaining pollutants larger than the bar spacings. As
material from the trash rack; material builds up behind the trash rack finer material also
Reduce the effect of wind-induced turbulence. Large accumulates.
open water surfaces are affected by wind, which
produces cross-and countercurrents that hinder Bars may be vertical, horizontal or angled. A typical
settling and may resuspend bottom deposits; arrangement which has been found to perform
satisfactorily in Australia is shown in Figure 34.8.
Suitable landscaped screening should be considered.
The following is based on a standard trash rack with
(b) Type 2 (Minor) SBTR Traps
vertical 10 mm galvanised flat steel bars at 60 mm centres.
A coefficient of 0.8 to account for contraction of flow
Pipe entries shall, where possible, be either parallel
through the trash rack has been assumed.
(preferred) or perpendicular to the major axis of the
sediment trap;
(a) Key Issues
Low-flow bypasses are not normally required on minor
(Type 2) SBTR traps; Overtopping (with potential remobilisation) due to
The maximum allowable depth from the top of the blockage;
surround to the lowest level of the sediment trap is Can cause upstream flooding;
limited by the reach of the equipment that will be used
Can cause erosion immediately downstream due to
for cleaning. For an extended-arm backhoe, this is
increased flow velocity;
approximately 4.5 metres;
Re-suspension can occur under tidal influence;
The top of the structure should be at least 150mm
above the surrounding ground level and/or protected Can generate odours due to pollutant breakdown;
by barriers to prevent vehicles from being driven over Are difficult to maintain and required frequent manual
the trap; maintenance;
Provide lockable, removable covers for access and Need to provide suitable access for maintenance;
maintenance; Public Safety (e.g. children during storm events); and
Step irons shall be provided for access, in a position, Aesthetics/visual screening of the trash rack and
which will not interfere with the operation of the trapped litter.
cleaning equipment.

Figure 34.7 defines the dimensions of a SBTR Type 2 GPT.

Urban Stormwater Management Manual 34-11


Gross Pollutant Traps

(b) Trash Rack Sizing impact loads;


overturning or unbalancing effects;
(i) Length
construction, maintenance & operation loads.

The length shall be assessed in conjunction with the trash


(a) Durability
rack height and the space available. It is desirable to
construct the trash rack in panels of standard lengths.
All elements must be designed to achieve the designed life
Local authorities may determine a standard trash rack
after allowance for material erosion and corrosion under
panel size for use in their area. The length of individual
the prevailing flow velocities.
panels shall be chosen such that they can be conveniently
lifted by backhoe (i.e. maximum weight 300 kg).
(b) Trash Rack

The required length of trash rack may exceed the width of


The trash rack and supporting structure should be
the trap. Methods of accommodating a longer trash rack
designed to withstand hydraulic loads imposed during
include a V-shape (see example 34.D1), a zig-zag or
overtopping, loads imposed by debris trapped on the trash
labyrinth shape, or a wrap-around shape.
rack, and loads due to impact by floating objects in
appropriate combination. Impact loads during floods can
(ii) Height
be large due to objects such as tree trunks in the flow.

The trash rack height is given by Equation 34.6, which is


Because of the potential for damage, trash racks should be
based on the rack not being overtopped by the water
designed with bolted joints so that they can be dismantled
quality design storm (usually 3 month ARI) flow when the
and replaced without the necessity of demolishing the
rack is 50% blocked.
entire structure.

34.5.6 Structural Design


34.5.7 Vehicular Access

The installation must be designed to accept all prevailing


An all weather access roadway shall be provided to allow
loads including but not limited to:
access for cleaning by mechanical equipment such as a
soil pressure; front-end loader, backhoe, bobcat and truck. The access
traffic loads; roadway shall be designed to allow a truck to be loaded
within close proximity to the trap with adequate area for
hydrostatic and buoyancy effects;
the loading equipment to manoeuvre from the trap to the
hydrodynamic loads; truck (refer Figure 34.9). The all weather access roadway
trapped debris loads; shall have a minimum clear width of 3.5 metres and a
maximum longitudinal grade of 1(V) : 6(H).

10 x 75 Flats Welded to 100 x 51 x 0.3


RHS and Base Flat RHS

FLOW
Trash Rack
20 mm Hole for
M16 Bolt (TYP)
20 x 180 Flat 60 c-c
Bolted to Wall (TYP)
20 X 180 Base Flat
Concrete
Sediment Trap Lr
Wall

Trash Rack Panel Detail


Section

Figure 34.8 Typical Trash Rack for SBTR Trap

34-12 Urban Stormwater Management Manual


Gross Pollutant Traps

Type SBTR-1 traps shall be provided with access ramps to 34.7 MAINTENANCE
allow machinery to enter the open sediment trap. The
access ramp into the sediment trap should have a 34.7.1 General Maintenance
minimum longitudinal grade of 1(V) : 6(H) and a maximum
clear width of 6 metres extending from the floor of the trap Appropriate maintenance is essential to ensure the long-
to the end of the side wall returns. Where possible, an term pollutant trapping efficiency of all GPTs.
access ramp and apron should also be provided to the
downstream side of the trash rack and shall have a It is important in planning a catchment wide strategy for
minimum clear width of 3.5 metres and a maximum installing pollution control devices to make adequate
longitudinal grade of 1(V) : 6(H). Transitions in vertical provision for maintenance. A written maintenance plan
alignment shall be provided at the crest and toe of the should be prepared.
ramps. Adequate space shall be provided to allow vehicles
to manoeuvre on and off the ramps. (a) Soft Trash Racks/ Litter Collection Devices (LCDs)

The soft trash racks/ LCDs are cleaned by removing each


sock in turn, undoing the tie at the base of the sock and
6 m min. dumping the collected material into a truck. The base of
GPT
2 m Radius the sock is then re-tied and it is slotted back into place.
Due to the effectiveness of the socks it has been found
6 m min.

that during periods of rainfall the LCDs may need to be


cleaned every two to three days.
Access Road
(b) Modified Trap Gullies

Figure 34.9 Access Requirements for SBTR Trap Type 2 Modified trap gullies are suited to cleaning using eduction.
(source: ACT City Services, 1994) While modified trap gullies can be maintained as part of a
regular maintenance program particular attention should
be given to assessing the need to clean trap gullies after
34.6 PROPRIETARY DEVICES storm events to ensure that trapped material is not flushed
from the trap gully during a subsequent storm event.
A number of proprietary designs for gross pollutant traps Experience to date suggests that trap gullies should be
have been developed. Some examples are shown in the maintained on average monthly in urban areas and or
following pages. more frequently in commercial areas.

Most of the proprietary devices developed to date are (c) SBTR Gross Pollutant Traps
intended for use on piped drainage systems, rather than
open channels. The SBTR-type GPTs can be cleaned out using front-end
loaders, backhoes and standard tip trucks. SBTR type 2
This Manual seeks to encourage the development and traps in Australia have been generally cleaned out with a
application of suitable proprietary devices in Malaysia. Massey Ferguson slide arm backhoe with extendable
Manufacturers seeking to market GPTs in Malaysia should hydraulic arm of 6m maximum reach and standard tip
provide full details, together with design guidelines and trucks. Eductor trucks, if available, can also be used to
testing to DID or the local authority. clean SBTR Type 2 traps.

Companies may offer a complete service to customers The sizing guidelines given in Section 34.5 are based on
including the design and construction/installation of their the trap being cleaned out twice per year.
traps e.g. CDS, Bandalong, etc. These organisations may
charge a fee to undertake the sizing of their trap and the A comprehensive review of the maintenance issues
preparation of a fee estimate to design and construct the including maintenance equipment, de-watering, access for
selected trap. maintenance equipment and cleaning, inspection program
and cleanout frequency, costs and safety is most recently
This may require the Client to provide information on the given in the Background Report on the Design Guidelines
catchment area, conduit size, its depth, estimated ARI for Gross Pollutant Traps prepared by Neville Jones &
capacity of the system, soil type, pollutant loading if Associates for Brisbane City Council in 1994.
known, and the required performance (% removal). Most
of the devices include an internal bypass arrangement (d) Proprietary Traps
designed by the manufacturer.
The appropriate cleaning frequency for proprietary traps
should be discussed with the trap suppliers and where

Urban Stormwater Management Manual 34-13


Gross Pollutant Traps

possible the experiences of operators should be reviewed purpose. Usually this is done with portable pumps. Water
to gain an understanding of the plant, manpower released to stormwater drains or directly to receiving
requirements and the likely frequency of cleaning required. waters should not threaten environmental values and
should therefore be consistent with locally applicable water
34.7.2 Maintenance Provisions quality objectives.

Maintenance provisions should be considered at the design Prior to pumping out the supernatant water, the SBTR may
phase of the GPT. be dosed with a non-toxic flocculating agent to promote
settling of colloidal particles.
(a) Clean-out (ease, frequency and timing)
The following methods are alternatives that can be used
GPTs should be inspected monthly, as well as after every for the disposal of poor quality supernatant water that is
major rainfall event, to ascertain whether clean-out is retained within the trap.
required.
(i) Via Infiltration or Filtration On-site
Cleaning frequencies depend on the sediment and litter
loading generated in the catchment. The design procedure The trap may be designed to allow supernatant water to
for SBTR traps in Section 34.5 are based on cleaning twice be pumped to a de-watering area on site. The water could
per year, on average. Suggested cleaning frequencies for either be infiltrated on a grassed area, or filtered through
other types of GPTs are to be determined from operational geo-fabric and allowed to drain back to the waterway. An
experience under Malaysian conditions. infiltration trench may be included to enhance water
polishing and/or permit groundwater recharge.
More regular cleaning may be required to facilitate ease of
removal (i.e. if trapped material becomes compacted and Such design shall:
hard to remove; or if specialised equipment is not
have a suitable de-watering and sludge handling or
available), or if litter loads are excessive.
drying area;

(b) Need for Special Equipment have stabilised banks to prevent erosion; and
not constitute a health hazard.
Designs should be based on cleaning operations being
undertaken with plant and equipment including: (ii) Direct to Sewer
eductor truck;
The SBTR trap may be designed, if necessary, to allow de-
backhoe or front-end- loader; watering by pumping supernatant water to a nearby sewer
truck; (with the approval of the local sewerage agency). Where
pump and generator; and there is a sewer line within 200 metres of the facility, the
sewer should be extended to provide a manhole with a
truck mounted crane.
bolt-down lid adjacent to the SBTR. This will enable the
decanted supernatant to be pumped to the manhole and
Some designs require more specialised equipment, such as
thence to the sewer.
eductor trucks. Such equipment may be introduced into
Malaysia during the life of this Manual, subject to
(iii) Via Tanker
discussions and approval by the local Authority to suit local
conditions and contractor's expertise.
Where there is no sewer available, provision shall be made
for the decanted supernatant to be pumped to tanker for
(c) De-watering
treatment and disposal by a licensed waste management
operator.
GPTs will need to be de-watered from time to time either
as part of their general operation or for maintenance

34-14 Urban Stormwater Management Manual


Gross Pollutant Traps

APPENDIX 34.A DESIGN CHARTS FOR 'SBTR' TYPE GPT

34.A.1 Average Sediment Retention against Area Ratio R

Design Chart 34.A1 shows the average annual sediment retention percentage as a function of the trap area ratio R, and the
degree of urbanisation in the catchment. Curve group (A), for particles =0.04 mm is used to select the trap area At in
order to achieve the specified design criteria. Curve group (B), for particles =0.01 mm is used in calculating the trap
volume for the sediment storage. In each case use the curve appropriate to the catchment urbanisation factor, U.

The curves were derived for Malaysian conditions, using local rainfall data for representative catchments and the Reference
Soil grading given in Table 34.2.

90

80

60
U (%)
70 40
(A) P0.04 for 80
Annual Sediment Retention P (%)

>0.04 mm
60 100

P0.04 = 50%
for Reference Soil

50 60 U (%)
40
U=80% 80

40 100

P0.01 = 33% (B) P0.01 for


U=80% >0.01 mm
30

20

10
Example
R = 1.2E-04
0
1.0E-05 1.0E-04 1.0E-03
Area Ratio, R = At /Ac

Design Chart 34.A1 Average Annual Sediment Retention against Area Ratio for Reference Soil

How to Use the Chart

An example is shown where the required annual removal of sediment = 0.04mm is P0.04 = 50%.

For U = 80%, the trap area ratio R = 1.2 E-4 and the predicted removal of sediment = 0.01mm is P0.01 = 33%

Urban Stormwater Management Manual 34-15


Gross Pollutant Traps

34.A.2 Soil Type Adjustment Factors F1 and F2

Vol. sediment 0.04mm for reference soil


Factor F1 =
Vol. sediment 0.04mm for site soil

Vol. sediment 0.01mm for reference soil


Factor F2 =
Vol. sediment 0.01mm for site soil

4.5

4.0

3.5
F2
Factors F1 and F2

3.0

2.5
Silty F2 = 2.1
F1
2.0
sand

F1 = 1.55
1.5
F1 = F2 = 1.0 for reference soil
1.0

F1 Silty clay
0.5
F2 Example
R = 1.2E-04
0
1.0E-05 1.0E-04 1.0E-03
Area Ratio, R = At /Ac

Design Chart 34.A2 Soil Type Adjustment Factors for Trap Area and Sediment Volume

Design Chart 34.A2 gives recommended values for the soil type adjustment factors F1 and F2 as a function of the soil type
in the catchment.

These factors have been derived by repeating the calculations for Design Chart 34.A1, for other typical soil gradings.

To use the Chart: Estimate the average soil type in the catchment, allowing for any changes due to urbanisation. Read
factors F1 and F2 from the curves for the chosen trap area ratio R. Interpolate between curves if necessary for other soil
types.

34-16 Urban Stormwater Management Manual


Gross Pollutant Traps

APPENDIX 34.B PROPRIETARY GROSS POLLUTANT TRAPS

34.B.1 List of Available Devices

Humeguard

The Humeguard Trap is marketed by CSR Humes in Australia. It comprises a specially shaped (floating) boom which diverts
material entrained in stormwater flows from the separator into an adjacent holding chamber which can be installed in piped
drainage systems. The chamber is baffled to ensure that litter and floating debris is retained and does not escape with the
outflow from the chamber. While it is particularly suited to retro-fitting within existing piped drainage system there is a
limitation on the maximum size of pipe on which the device can be installed. An illustration of a Humeguard trap is given
in Figure 34.B1.

Figure 34.B1 Humeguard Trap

Downstream Defender

The Downstream Defender is a vortex-type treatment device designed to capture settleable solids, floatables, oils and
grease from stormwater runoff. It is marketed by Rocla Australia. It consists of a concrete cylindrical vessel with a sloping
base and internal components. Stormwater is introduced tangentially into the side of the cylinder and spirals down the
perimeter allowing heavier particles to settle out by gravity and the drag forces on the wall and base of the chamber. As
flow rotates about the vertical axis, solids are directed towards the base of the chamber where they are stored in a
collection facility. The internal components then direct the main flow away from the perimeter and back up the middle of
the vessel as a narrow spiralling column rotating at a slower velocity than the outer downward flow.

Cleansall Trap

The Cleansall trap is installed using pre-cast elements marketed by Rocla Australia. A diversion weir deflects the treatable
flow into a circular chamber in which are seated four quadrant baskets. Litter and other debris are captured by the baskets
as stormwater flows through the mesh baskets and out a depressed outlet at the base of the chamber. A sediment sump is
located immediately downstream of the chamber where the stormwater wells up to re-join the stormwater conduit.
Features of this system are that it can be installed underground and in such a way as to minimise head loss in flood flows
and that high trapping efficiencies are predicted from laboratory tests.

Urban Stormwater Management Manual 34-17


Gross Pollutant Traps

StormCeptor, HumeCeptor

The StormCeptor trap is an in-line device for removing oil and sediment from stormwater. It is marketed in Canada under
the name StormCeptor, and in Australia by CSR-Humes under the name HumeCeptor. It replaces a conventional manhole
in the stormwater system. The HumeCeptor comprises a (circular, lower) treatment chamber and an (in-line) by-pass
chamber.

Stormwater is directed through the bypass chamber. Low flows are diverted into the (lower, sealed) treatment chamber by
a weir and a drop pipe arrangement that directs the water tangentially along the treatment chamber wall. Water flows
through the treatment chamber to the (submerged) outlet pipe and back up into the bypass chamber downstream of the
weir. The stormwater then flows back into the downstream piped system. Oil and other liquids with a specific gravity less
than water rise in the treatment chamber and are trapped beneath the roof of the treatment chamber. Sediment settles to
the bottom of the chamber.

During high flows, stormwater overtops the weir and is discharged directly into the downstream piped system. Their
application appears to be most suited to developments such as service stations, bus depots, roads and industrial and
commercial parking areas. An illustration of a StormCeptor trap is given in Figure 34.B2.

Sediment & oil removal Oil removal can be performed by


can be performed by vacuum truck through the vent pipe
vacuum truck through
the large outlet riser pipe

Disc Insert

Concrete
StormCeptor

Figure 34.B2 StormCeptor Trap

34-18 Urban Stormwater Management Manual


Gross Pollutant Traps

Continuous Deflective Separation(CDS) Trap

The CDS trap consists of an on-line stainless steel perforated separation plate placed in a hydraulically balanced chamber.
Solid pollutants are retained in a central chamber under a mild vortex action, and drop into a basket for later removal
and/or for removal using a grab bucket or using eduction. Features of this system are that it can be installed underground
and in such a way as to minimise head loss in flood flows and that high trapping efficiencies are predicted from laboratory
tests. An illustration of a CDS trap is given in Figure 34.B3.

Figure 34.B3 CDS Trap

Urban Stormwater Management Manual 34-19


Gross Pollutant Traps

Ecosol Traps

Ecosol Pty Ltd has developed a range of stormwater treatment devices. The RSF 4000 trap can be fitted to any size or
shape of pipe and consists of two parallel channels working together, namely a filtration/collection unit and two overflow/by
pass channels. The unit filters capture all gross pollutants equal to or greater than the screen aperture size although solids
significantly less than the screen aperture size are routinely collected. The configuration of the unit creates a hydraulic
barrier that deflects stormwater into the unit. When the screen becomes blocked the hydraulic barrier dissipates allowing
flows to bypass the unit. An illustration of a RSF 4000 trap is given in Figure 34.B4.

Figure 34.B4 Ecosol RSF 4000 Trap

34-20 Urban Stormwater Management Manual


Gross Pollutant Traps

Baramy Trap

The Baramy Trap is an end-of-pipe trap that separates stormwater from litter and debris by directing the outflow from a
stormwater pipe down an inclined screen. The majority of the water falls through the screen and is discharged either
around or beneath the litter chamber into the downstream (open) drainage system. A portion of the stormwater flow
pushes the litter and debris down the screen into a collection chamber which is screened to allow collected stormwater to
drain away. This trap was developed in the Blue Mountains outside Sydney, Australia where urban drainage system on the
plateau discharge into incised heavily vegetated valleys.

A general arrangement of a Baramy trap is given in Figure 34.B5.

Figure 34.B5 Baramy trap

Urban Stormwater Management Manual 34-21


Gross Pollutant Traps

Nicholas Ski-Jump Trap

The Nicholas Ski-Jump trap is also an end-of-pipe trap which captures litter, debris and sediment transported by
stormwater. It comprises:

(i) a perforated screen to screen low flows and to direct higher flows into a litter receiver,
(ii) a perforated flume cover to contain litter during higher flows,
(iii) a modular set of fine-meshed, interlocking litter baskets,
(iv) a mesh covered sediment well,
(v) provision for an absorbent pillow to collect surface oils during low flows, and
(vi) a permeable silt gate to maintain a stilling pond above the well and to promote settlement of solids.

This trap was developed in Australia and has been installed on several drainage outfalls for major highways and freeways.

A schematic arrangement of a Nicholas Ski-Jump trap is given in Figure 34.B6.

Figure 34.B6 Nicholas Ski-jump Trap

34-22 Urban Stormwater Management Manual


Gross Pollutant Traps

34.B.2 Sources of Further Information

It is not practicable in this Manual to provide full information on the range of devices. The devices are being continually
improved and new devices developed. Further information on various type of devices may be found in:

1. ACT City Services, Stormwater Section (1994) "Urban Stormwater Standard Engineering Practices", Edition 1, AGPS,
Canberra, Australia.

2. Allison, RA, Chiew, FHS and McMahon, TA (1998) "A Decision-Support System for Determining Effective Trapping
Strategies for Gross Pollutants" CRC for Catchment Hydrology, Report, No. 98/3, Australia.

3. Angkasa GHD Engineers Sdn Bhd (1998) "Putrajaya Stormwater Management Design Guidelines"

4. Auckland Regional Council (1992) "Design Guideline Manual for Stormwater Treatment Devices", First Edition,
prepared by Beca Carter Hollings & Ferner Ltd, November, Auckland NZ.

5. Department of Environment, Land and Planning (1992) "Gross Pollutant Trap Guidelines", Final Report, Prepared by
Willing & Partners Pty Ltd for the ACT Planning Authority, Canberra.

6. Environment Protection Authority, NSW (1997) "Managing Urban Stormwater - Treatment Techniques", Final Report",
November, Australia.

7. Neville Jones & Associates (1994) Design Guidelines for Gross Pollutant Traps Background Report", Prepared for
Brisbane City Council, Australia.
8. Willing & Partners (1995) "Stormwater Design Guidelines for Homebush Bay", August, Australia.

Contact details for the Co-operative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology (CRCCH), developers of the Gross Pollutant
Decision Support System for gross pollutant traps, are as follows:

Co-operative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology (CRCCH)


address: Monash University, Wellington Road, Clayton 3168 Australia
phone: +61 (3) 9905 2704, fax +61 (3) 9905 5033
website: http://www-civil.eng.monash.edu.au/centres/crcch

Information on Proprietary Devices may be obtained from the relevant manufacturers listed below. This list is not inclusive,
and listing does not imply endorsement by DID.

Baramy Pty Ltd, Australia. phone: +61 (2)


website: http://www.baramy.com.au/

CDSs, franchisee: Bisleys Environmental Ltd., New Zealand. phone: +64 (7) 843 8283

website: http://www.bisleys.net/

CSR-Humes, Australia. phone: +61 (2) 9832 5555


website: http://www.csr.com.au/product-homeswork/construct/humes/humes.asp/

Ecosol Pty Ltd, Australia. phone: +61 (2) 9560 2802

website: http://www.ecosol.com.au/

Rocla Pty Ltd, Australia. phone: +61 (2)


website: http://www.pipe.rocla.com.au/

StormCeptor, Canada. phone: +1 (800) 565 4801

website: http://www.stormceptor.com/

Urban Stormwater Management Manual 34-23


Gross Pollutant Traps

APPENDIX 34.C RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF GROSS POLLUTANT TRAPS AND OTHER BMPs MEASURES

Cost-
Pollutants Combination of Pollutants
effectiveness
Measures

Litter, Oils,

Litter, Oils,
Litter, Oils

Sediment,

Sediment,
Relative

Organics,

Organics,
Sediment

Sediment

Organics,

Organics,
Sediment

Sediment

Sediment

Sediment
Nutrients

Nutrients

Nutrients

Nutrients

Nutrients
Organics
Relative

Organic,

Organic,

Organic,
Oils and
Organic
Effective-

Grease
Matter

Metals

Metals
Litter,

Litter,
Litter,

Litter,

Litter,

Litter,

Litter,

Litter,
Cost

Litter
ness

Oils

Oils
GPT STRUCTURES
Floating Debris Trap: boom, Bandalong 5 3 1 7 1 1 3 6 4 3 2 2 5 4 3 2 4 4 3 low low
In-pit devices 5 5 3 1 1 1 4 3 5 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 4 low low
Litter Control Device: Net-tech 7 7 1 1 1 1 4 4 7 4 4 4 5 3 5 3 4 4 4 medium medium
Trash rack 7 7 6 1 6 1 7 4 7 4 7 4 5 5 7 5 5 5 5 medium medium
SBTR trap 7 7 7 4 7 5 7 6 7 6 7 6 6 6 7 6 6 6 7 medium high
Proprietary devices: Baramy 8 8 4 1 4 2 6 5 8 5 6 5 6 4 7 5 5 5 6 medium medium
CDS 9 9 7 6 7 2 8 8 9 6 8 6 8 7 8 6 8 8 7 high high
Ecosol 8 8 6 3 6 2 7 6 8 5 7 5 6 6 7 5 6 6 6 high high
HumeCeptor 2 3 6 8 6 3 4 5 3 3 5 3 4 5 4 4 5 5 4 high high
Cleansall 7 7 4 3 4 2 6 5 7 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 5 5 high high
Downstream Defender 5 5 6 5 6 2 6 5 5 4 6 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 high high
HOUSEKEEPING, CONSTRUCTION AND EDUCATION BMPs
Improved cleaning & maintenance 7 7 6 5 6 3 7 6 7 5 7 5 7 6 7 6 7 7 6 medium high
Education program 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 low medium
Point source controls 6 5 6 5 6 4 6 6 6 5 6 5 5 6 6 5 6 6 5 medium high
Construction controls (ESCP) 3 3 6 2 6 2 5 3 3 3 5 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 medium medium
Mechanical street sweeping 7 7 4 1 4 2 6 4 7 5 6 5 5 4 6 4 5 5 5 low low
Stormwater Management Plan 8 6 4 3 3 4 6 6 7 6 5 5 6 5 6 5 5 5 6 low high
Source: adapted from Middle Harbour Stormwater Management Plan" by Willing & Partners (NSW), 1999. Relative costings are subject to confirmation for Malaysian conditions.
Note: Rating for the effectiveness of GPT is 1 for the Least Effective and 9 for the Most Effective.

Urban Stormwater Management Manual 34-24


Gross Pollutant Traps

APPENDIX 34.D WORKED EXAMPLE

Example for Sizing of SBTR type 1 Trap

Problem: Determine the size required for the SBTR type 1 GPT in the Sg. Rokam example of a community-level stormwater
system, as used in Example 16.B.1.

Solution:

1) Determine the required removal efficiency. In accordance with Table 4.5 the trap will be sized to trap 70% of sediment
= 0.04 mm diameter.
2) Determine the catchment area, % urban area and soil type in the catchment

From the data in Chapter 16, we obtain: Ac = 113.8 ha, U = 80% and soil type = silty sand.

3) Select a trial trap area ratio R. First use a trial area ratio R = 1.2 E-4.
4) Calculate the required trap area by trial and error:

Design Chart 34.A1, Curve A, gives P0.04 = 50% for the reference soil and Design Chart 34.A2 gives F1 = 1.55.
Substituting these values in Equation 34.3 gives:
P0.04* =50% x 1.55 = 79%. This is more than required so the trap size can be reduced.

Try R = 0.8 E-4. For this value of R, Design Chart 34.A1,Curve A gives P0.04 = 43% for the reference soil and Design
Chart 34.A2 gives F1 = 1.65; so the calculated removal efficiency for the site soil is 43% x 1.65 = 71%. This is
acceptable.
Therefore the required minimum trap size is:

At = R x Ac = 0.8E-4 x 113.8E4 m2 = 91 m2

Lt
5) Determine the trap length and width to give a ratio of between 2 and 3.
Wt

The following trial dimensions are selected: Lt = 14.0 m, Wt = 7.0 m.

Lt
Then = 2.0, and actual trap area At = 98 m2. (Although this area is more than is theoretically required, the
Wt
trap will need to be slightly over-sized so that the trash rack can be fitted in as discussed later).

6) Determine the average annual sediment export using Chapter 15 or other local data:
From Table 16.B3, annual sediment load allowing for upstream controls is:

M = 116,998 kg, say 117 tonne.

7) Determine P0.01, the average annual pollutant retention = 0.01 mm diameter for the reference soil from the relevant
Curve B in the lower part of Design Chart 34.A1, and Volume Factor F2 from Design Chart 34.A2:

Pollutant retention for reference soil P0.01 = 33%, and F2 = 2.1.


Pollutant retention for site soil (Equation 34.4) P0.01* = 33% x 2.1 = 69%.
8) Determine the required minimum sediment trap depth from Equation 34.5:
Dt = 0.0065 P0.01* M / At = 0.0065 x 69 x 117 / 98

= 0.535 m.

9) Determine the rainfall in the water quality design storm (usually 3 month ARI) from Chapter 13. Calculate the peak
flow, Q0.25 (m3/sec) using any suitable method from Chapter 14.
In this case, the flow calculations were done using the time-area method in XP-SWMM as shown in Chapter 16,
Example 16.A.1. For the GPT site at node 6F1/2, Q0.25 = 11.5 m3/sec.

Urban Stormwater Management Manual 34-25


Gross Pollutant Traps

10) Determine the trash rack height from Equation 34.7. Try a trash rack length Lr = 7.0m to match the width of the
sediment trap:
2 /3 2 /3
Q 11.5
H r = 1.22 0.25
= 1.22 x = 1.7 m
Lr 7

This height is excessive and impractical because it would increase flooding upstream, therefore the design has to
be revised. Considering a trash rack length Lr of 10.0 m gives Hr = 1.34 m which is reasonable. The longer trash
rack can be achieved by adjusting the design to use an V-shaped trash rack (in plan).

11) Determine the nominal flow velocity V0.25 in the water quality design storm using Equation 34.8. Increase the
dimensions of the sediment trap pool or increase the track rack height if the flow velocity V is greater than 1.0 m/s, to
minimise the re-entrainment of deposited sediment.
Q 0.25
V 0.25 =
(Dw + H r )Wt
11.5
= = 0.85 m/s, which is acceptable.
(0.535+1.40)x7.0

12) For a Type 2 (covered) SBTR trap, determine required clearance above the trash rack from Equation 34.9:
In this example, the trash rack is open (Type 1) so this step is omitted. The open trash rack will be overtopped in
floods greater than the 3 month ARI flood (if 50% blocked) and the open channel must be designed accordingly.

The resulting 'theoretical' concept design for the SBTR trap is as shown below. This concept was used for Worked
Example 16.A.1 in Chapter 16. In reality, the concept and dimensions may have to be adjusted if required to suit site
conditions.

Side Wall

Transition

0.30 m 5.0
m
1.34 m
5.0 m 7.0
m Inflow
min 0.535 m Deep Channel
Trash Rack
Sediment Storage

14.0 m NOTE: Side Wall and


Transition not Shown
Outflow to Pond on this Side

Figure 34.D1 Diagrammatic Layout of Proposed Type 1 SBTR Trap for Sg. Rokam example

34-26 Urban Stormwater Management Manual


Gross Pollutant Traps

34-24 Urban Stormwater Management Manual